Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Laughing Philosopher

Expand Messages
  • Steve Haag
    ... of dialectical contest with the Senses. Intellect: Ostensibly there is color, ostensibly sweetness, ostensibly bitterness, actually only atoms and the
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "simonedi2"
      <simonedim@e...> wrote:
      >
      > In a passage from his writings the Intellect is introduced in a kind
      of dialectical contest with the Senses.

      "Intellect: Ostensibly there is color, ostensibly sweetness,
      ostensibly bitterness, actually only atoms and the void.

      The Senses: Poor intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us
      you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat".

      The world of the atoms and the void is colorless, cold, without
      qualities. It must be. Yet all the evidence of its existence belies
      this.
      What kind of madness is that?
      It's science (thinking about the world)

      Simone,

      Thanks for this entry. It brings up wonder and awe, mystery, humor
      and madness. Even the laughing philosopher owes his laughter to the
      peculiar joining of all things to arrive just there, some singular
      appreciation/mockery of being as it shows itself.

      SteveD
    • Jo Selsjord
      Simone, I m so pleased to sense the air moved by your fluttering wings once more (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/10820). Your
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Simone,

        I'm so pleased to sense the air moved by your fluttering wings once more
        (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/10820).
        Your 'essay' on Democritus/Demokrit, the laughing Philosopher, was a
        good reminder for me of all that I haven't really considered and don't
        know much about.

        Looking back over the span of almost 2500 years there are glimpses of
        him and (more or less) contemporary Greek 'giants' emerging out of
        hospitable, warm, comforting and enclosing waters onto a new and
        virginally strange and unknown beach both beackoning and fearsome (what
        is crouching unseen behind even the closest crop or boulder) . . .

        We may feel comfortable - and comforted - with our models and
        established/conventional 'knowledge' of how this material world is
        pieced together, 'though I hardly think the final word or concept is yet
        general knowledge - to say the least. But consider the bravery and
        excitingly precarious jumps and elaborations involved for our
        predecessors entering this 'waste land' - as it might seem - for the
        first time. Maybe he was deluded at certain points of
        observation/reflection; I can't blame him - looking back - he had a
        better excuse (being one of the first) than we have from our present
        point of observation.

        One might ponder the discrepancies between Demokrit's concepts of 'the
        material' and our own views. It is easy for us to state e.g. "Here
        Democritus was wrong as wrong could be."; we have our models and our
        empiry seeming to make sense and constitute an order, but they are still
        just 'models' and observations fitting our concepts: The proof is in
        the pudding - and who has really, fully tasted this Grand Pudding yet?

        In Demokrit's time the admirable effort might seem to be mostly one of
        breaking loose of the 'suffocating' comfort of a hierarchical and well
        predictable world order no longer sounding true all the way to its
        marrow; for us the challenging horn could be playing quite a different
        tune 'though the themes might be related and familiar.

        Anyway - to me - bridging and connecting with his sphere more than
        anything is the humour/laughter/hindsight
        (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/):: "Democritus, known in
        antiquity as the "laughing philosopher" because of his emphasis on the
        value of "cheerfulness".


        Gratefully

        JoS
      • holderlin66
        Jo Selsjord wrote: One might ponder the discrepancies between Demokrit s concepts of the material and our own views. It is easy for us to state e.g. Here
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Jo Selsjord wrote:

          "One might ponder the discrepancies between Demokrit's concepts
          of 'the
          material' and our own views. It is easy for us to state e.g. "Here
          Democritus was wrong as wrong could be."; we have our models and our
          empiry seeming to make sense and constitute an order, but they are
          still
          just 'models' and observations fitting our concepts: The proof is in
          the pudding - and who has really, fully tasted this Grand Pudding
          yet?"

          Well that was great Jo Selsjord. Now let us be community minded.
          Firstly Stephen Hale was bumping into research that had to do
          with "Riddles of Philosophy" by Steiner. Of course how the various
          fire temperament saw the world, or Earth temperament saw the world,
          or Air temperament saw the world, and how the Zodiac and range of
          philosophy was broken down by Steiner into a 12 fold structure, will
          probably rot away because we nibble, we don't connect, build, grasp
          hold onto and enrich ourselves at the feast.

          Certainly various world views and the humans who caught those
          streams were forming the nervous system as Stephen Hale was trying
          to indicate. I mean thinking and the Intellectual Soul brain, grey
          matter was being prepared to become a vessel, leaving the town
          called Perfect Imagination and Myth and coming down stream to a a
          series of villages where each town or each brain was peculiar in how
          in saw things. Why? Because the Organ of the origins of what later
          arose as Kants fully closed brain case, was slowly locking the doors
          down into the dark chamber of the head. Stephen should develop this
          more carefully.

          But we on the other hand should go over "Riddles of Philosophy" so
          that we can see the super structure of what Steiner was seeing in
          the pattern of these Greek thinkers and their different views. Yes,
          so were nerve pathways being formed from let say, the Zodiac
          instreaming of fire, air, water and Earth...of course I want no dim
          witted argument that this has nothing to do with the stars or the
          conctraction of Imagination into thinking...

          Things can be so richly explored, if we really walked it out into
          the level and understood what some of our fellow thinkers are trying
          to say... Certainly Steiner makes a good backdrop for our
          explorations providing we can see the patterns in a new way and see
          the sound logic that Steiner outlined in ancient Greek Philosophers
          and "Riddles of Philosophy".

          But, correct me if I am wrong here.. I think it is "Riddles of
          Philosophy". In any case, look at all the interesting places
          thinking can take us and look at most of the boring things we tend
          to revert to like clogged drains. That is why I much appreciated
          Stephen Hale. That certainly is why I much appreciated Diluted
          Uranium as real nightmare issues...all these aspects...for instance
          the effect into the marrow of the bones and leukemia, well it brings
          us right back to the Christ event and the marrow of the super sun
          ego in the bones, the melting of the bones, the ricketts of the raw
          spirit that Christ was getting down to every droplet of blood in his
          bones....

          Ah but thinking, thinking is for Spiritual Science and the School of
          Michael.
        • Jo Selsjord
          Hold the Ford! I didn t quite get that (what was great, what maybe wasn t so great - and the community mind just all drifted by me like a faint flower scent
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hold the Ford!

            I didn't quite get that (what was great, what maybe wasn't so great -
            and 'the community mind' just all drifted by me like a faint flower
            scent or a distant fart) - please extemporate.


            JoS
          • holderlin66
            JoS what is your native language?
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              JoS

              what is your native language?
            • Jo Selsjord
              Not yours, I m sure, grumbling man (on second thought - though - maybe that s just it) . . . I m borne Norwegian, but my first legible words were allegedely
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Not yours, I'm sure, grumbling man (on second thought - 'though - maybe
                that's just it) . . .

                I'm borne Norwegian, but my first legible words were allegedely English
                (with a distinctly Brithish accent); then Norwegian for many years - and
                as a short intermission English again for twelve or eigteen months.
                Presently I speak Norwegian mostly 'though I might swear acceptably both
                in German, Swedish, Danish and English.

                So?


                holderlin66 wrote:
                >
                > JoS
                >
                > what is your native language?
              • dottie zold
                JoS, you have the most wicked wit of anyone I have seen or heard. Truly. I think, pardon me for doing so:), that if you haven t already put a book together on
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  JoS, you have the most wicked wit of anyone I have
                  seen or heard. Truly. I think, pardon me for doing
                  so:), that if you haven't already put a book together
                  on parables of sorts, wicked ones that is:), you might
                  consider it. I mean really.
                  my best,
                  d



                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
                  http://my.yahoo.com
                • simonedi2
                  Hello Steven, Thanks for your reply. It was surprising for me to find out that such a serious thinker, father of modern science, was a man who value so much
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Steven,

                    Thanks for your reply.

                    It was surprising for me to find out that such a serious thinker,
                    father of modern science, was a man who value so much humor and
                    could consider such serious and deep subjects while laughing.

                    Well, laugh at oneself and at the world is not that hard.

                    It was once, in my signature :
                    "Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they will never
                    cease to be amused"
                    Later, I changed it by
                    "Thou shall not weight more than thy refrigerator"...

                    But let's leave the words with Democritus:

                    "The best for men is to take life with the maximum of joy and the
                    minimum of annoyances"
                    And also: "Happiness resides not in possessions, and not in
                    gold, happiness dwells in the soul".

                    It seems he knew what he was talking about.

                    Cyb hugs,
                    Simone.

                    > Simone,
                    >
                    > Thanks for this entry. It brings up wonder and awe, mystery, humor
                    > and madness. Even the laughing philosopher owes his laughter to
                    the
                    > peculiar joining of all things to arrive just there, some singular
                    > appreciation/mockery of being as it shows itself.
                    >
                    > SteveD
                  • simonedi2
                    Dear Jo, I m glad to see you here so I can flutter my wings in good company. Thanks for your link, I just took a look; it seems to have more material than I
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Jo,

                      I'm glad to see you here so I can flutter my wings in good
                      company.
                      Thanks for your link, I just took a look; it seems to have more
                      material than I expected to find in a website.

                      Thanks also for your kind reply and praise, and for borrowing your
                      attention to this `divagation' of mine on Democritus.
                      I call it a divagation, instead of an essay, since this text,
                      reflection of thoughts on the subject, raises questions rather than
                      providing any answer.
                      I don't and couldn't bring any news to this topic, it's
                      just a compilation built from scarce resources available in this
                      subject.

                      The only I knew about Democritus before, isn't different from
                      anyone else, that is, a Greek philosopher who fascinated by the
                      problem of Thales, just like every Greek thinker of his time, intuit
                      the idea of atom.

                      In what basis he developed his thought, what paths he followed to
                      formulate his theories, all belongs to fields of speculation, since
                      from his original work, fragments cited by other authors is all that
                      was left.
                      I got to him when making a review of organic chemistry. Back to the
                      origins, it's with Democritus that Chemistry begins.
                      What else he knew about it?

                      The remaining feeling, after looking for information on his work, I
                      try to synthesize in my message:
                      Why did his books perish and his reputation had to be denigrated?
                      What did Democritus knew that couldn't be spread and had to be
                      destroyed to prevent its divulgation?
                      What are Democritus' 'secrets'?

                      When comparing his achievements to what is knowledge nowadays, I
                      wanted to emphasize his extraordinary intuition and, like I said,
                      the fact that, amazingly, the product of pure intuition, deprived of
                      any resources available to modern science, has been confirmed.
                      For example, when he says, that atoms of certain `shapes'
                      could be kept together due to 'hooks' or 'indentations', what
                      a astonish
                      intuition of what we would know, almost two and a half millenniums
                      later as atomic liaisons that origin molecules?
                      His fail concerning to the importance of gravity, "mass attracts
                      mass", may be due, and here it's just a speculation of my own, to
                      the fact that attributing to the atomic liaisons the property of
                      keeping atoms together, there wasn't need of another force of
                      coercion to sustain his atomic theory.

                      While in the field of human sciences, especially, thinkers as
                      Aristotle and Plato provided the basis for development of
                      a method, from their contributions in natural science, nor
                      their theories were confirmed, neither their methods have any
                      applicability to produce scientific knowledge , as we know it
                      nowadays.

                      What were Democritus contributions in human sciences? Did they have
                      the same brilliancy of those in natural science?
                      Was Democritus really a materialist or was this accusation one more
                      subterfuge used to denigration?

                      It's a growing pile of questions...

                      Concerning to his theory about nature of the 'soul', I have a
                      personal opinion that there might be the starting point to build a
                      bridge between materialism and spiritualism.
                      I've just a seed of thought, still 'in a ferment'.
                      Anyway, that's my justification to have Democritus inserted in a
                      board supposed to treat Spiritual Science.

                      Cyb hugs,
                      Simone.
                    • simonedi2
                      Hello Dottie, This is not exactly a reply to your post, since it has nothing to do with your discussion with Jo. It s just to tell you I finished reading those
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 30, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Dottie,

                        This is not exactly a reply to your post, since it has nothing to do
                        with your discussion with Jo.

                        It's just to tell you I finished reading those books you
                        referred, "Threefold Mary" and "The Feminine Dimension of
                        the Divine".
                        Very interesting , very well developed (both of them) and intriguing
                        in many aspects.

                        Also, constant theme of your posts, I happen to share your opinion
                        that Magdalene and John, the Apostle are one and the same.
                        This idea, for me, is deprived of references, so far, but with
                        arguments also 'in fermentation'.
                        I'd like to ask you if you have any book or text references
                        specifically in this topic, supporting your insight.

                        (With all respect for Dottie's theory opposers, their arguments
                        and references , I believe it may be a `mystery' which of
                        shimmer and intuition are an exclusively feminine prerogative.)

                        Cyb hugs,
                        Simone.
                      • yogidahl2000
                        Hey Simone! Ah,I know I m butting in here,I hope you ll excuse me! But Thank You Very Much for making this old Greek Gentleman come alive! Here s one for
                        Message 11 of 28 , Dec 31, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hey Simone!
                          Ah,I know I'm butting in here,I hope you'll excuse me!
                          But Thank You Very Much for making this old Greek Gentleman come
                          alive!
                          Here's one for You,this is a tibetan saying:
                          When 2 Philosophers agree – One of them is not a Philosopher
                          When 2 Saints disagree – One of them is not a Saint
                          Vibes,
                          Flemming



                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "simonedi2"
                          <simonedim@e...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hello Steven,
                          >
                          > Thanks for your reply.
                          >
                          > It was surprising for me to find out that such a serious thinker,
                          > father of modern science, was a man who value so much humor and
                          > could consider such serious and deep subjects while laughing.
                          >
                          > Well, laugh at oneself and at the world is not that hard.
                          >
                          > It was once, in my signature :
                          > "Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they will
                          never
                          > cease to be amused"
                          > Later, I changed it by
                          > "Thou shall not weight more than thy refrigerator"...
                          >
                          > But let's leave the words with Democritus:
                          >
                          > "The best for men is to take life with the maximum of joy and the
                          > minimum of annoyances"
                          > And also: "Happiness resides not in possessions, and not in
                          > gold, happiness dwells in the soul".
                          >
                          > It seems he knew what he was talking about.
                          >
                          > Cyb hugs,
                          > Simone.
                          >
                          > > Simone,
                          > >
                          > > Thanks for this entry. It brings up wonder and awe, mystery,
                          humor
                          > > and madness. Even the laughing philosopher owes his laughter to
                          > the
                          > > peculiar joining of all things to arrive just there, some
                          singular
                          > > appreciation/mockery of being as it shows itself.
                          > >
                          > > SteveD
                        • holderlin66
                          holderlin wrote: Demokrit s concepts of the material It is easy for us to state e.g. Here Democritus was wrong as wrong could be. ; Well that was great Jo
                          Message 12 of 28 , Dec 31, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            holderlin wrote:

                            Demokrit's concepts
                            of 'the
                            material' It is easy for us to state e.g. "Here
                            Democritus was wrong as wrong could be.";

                            Well that was great Jo Selsjord. Now let us be community minded.
                            Firstly Stephen Hale was bumping into research that had to do
                            with "Riddles of Philosophy" by Steiner.

                            Bradford adds to the wonderful thread that started by Simone??:

                            Communty minded means that you actually do your damned homework and
                            check out how your sparkling intuition is enhanced in the world of
                            the most advanced Spiritual and Consciousness Soul thinking. Ya,
                            that is maybe not the way you would put the question, but suddenly
                            you see that the theory of atoms and the basis of physics and the
                            whole foundation of materialism comes from some guy in Greece who
                            apparently was not a perfered smoking preference for Michael.
                            Michael, by apparent prejudice, decided he liked smoking Aristos
                            better than Demo's.

                            But since most of the people stumbling, half asleep on this list
                            don't even bother to use the research and search engines...we are
                            here to help. Also cudos to Frank and JoAnn, why later. Firstly,
                            drop what you are doing and rent the film, "MindWalk". YOu see, if
                            you really had a community sense and an interest in
                            things, "MindWalk" would have astonished you. You would have found
                            it, it would have found you. However phases and developmental
                            selfishness, and self interest prevent people from tackling the
                            difficult issues of Materialism and viewing the discussion with
                            fresh eyes. Most people give a rats ass about the stunning
                            Materialistic World View we are submerged in. Mainly because they
                            are self involved and care little but what comes and strokes their
                            little emotional pussy. That is partly how we got the term
                            Anthropussies. They cannot seem to connect to the community of
                            humanity and their thinking cannot hold up in the big ocean.

                            Since "Riddles of Philosophy" is beyond where some of you prefer to
                            search, easy to find, perhaps we can give you a current dose of
                            community research that even Stephen Hale might appreciate most
                            people do not have the organ to take an interest and put these
                            thoughts together properly. I know I have such an interest and so
                            does Tom Mellett.

                            http://www.southerncrossreview.org/8/einstein.htm

                            " In his monumental work, The Riddles of Philosophy, published in
                            1923, Rudolf Steiner traces the evolution of Western philosophical
                            thought from its birth in ancient Greece to its deathbed in our
                            century. The book is not an encyclopedic recounting of philosophers
                            and their ideas, but rather an organic survey of the evolving
                            sequence of thought riddles faced by various philosophers over the
                            last 25 centuries. What questions did they wrestle with at what time
                            and why? If philosophy is an ocean, then Steiner dives underwater to
                            evaluate the undercurrents and sources of philosophical questions,
                            whereas the traditional academic treatment of the history of
                            philosophy only catalogues the sequential passage of philosophers as
                            conceptual sailors piloting their noetic vessels on the ocean
                            surface. While academic philosophy collects only the manifest list
                            of passengers and cargo, Steiner is interested in the actual
                            experience of the many voyages, so that the reader may experience
                            philosophy not as a dry, abstract scheme, but as a living organism
                            that is born, grows up, matures and dies over twenty-five centuries
                            of human existence.

                            To Rudolf Steiner's way of thinking, the concept of Hindu
                            philosophy, or Buddhist philosophy, or any Oriental philosophy is
                            actually a contradiction in terms. Philosophy as such is a specific
                            Western European phenomenon which only came into existence in the
                            sixth or seventh Century before Christ in the locale of Greece. The
                            word itself means "love of wisdom," and to the Greek mind, the very
                            need to love something was a tacit admission that the something was
                            missing, and loving it was searching to regain it.

                            What was the "lost wisdom?" Whatever it was, it was not lost
                            by the Hindus, Buddhists or other Oriental people. Since there was
                            nothing lost, there was nothing to be regained, and hence no need to
                            invent such a thing as philosophy, thereby making the concept of
                            Oriental philosophy a contradiction in terms. As Steiner puts it at
                            the beginning of The Riddles of Philosophy:

                            "All attempts to find [that] philosophical thought life
                            developed in pre-Greek times fail upon closer inspection. Genuine
                            philosophy cannot be dated earlier than the Greek civilization. What
                            may at first glance seem to resemble the element of thought in
                            Oriental or Egyptian world contemplation proves, on closer
                            inspection to be not real thought, but parabolic, symbolic
                            conception."
                          • kmlightseeker
                            Bradford, Philosophy is interesting for sure, but it requires patience and careful reading to make sense of. In other words, one shouldn t rush into it. To
                            Message 13 of 28 , Dec 31, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Bradford,

                              Philosophy is interesting for sure, but it requires patience and
                              careful reading to make sense of. In other words, one shouldn't rush
                              into it. To take the concepts and conceptual frameworks seriously
                              means to ruminate upon the ideas presented - to spend time on the study.

                              The Greek philsophers were masters at thinking. Let's remember that
                              their style of learning/teaching/discussion was predominately oral and
                              not written, and that this differs markedly from our era where reams
                              and tons of information and writings are available. I use search
                              engines and often find interesting information - either incidently or
                              as part of my intended search. The most productive research is guided
                              research - the use of indexes, abstracts and other subject guides help
                              immensely in the contextualisation and broadening (and narrowing) of
                              research avenues and knowledge itself. So, I recommend everyone
                              consult their library and the resources therein for assistance -
                              online and in person. The "Steiner Archive" guy does a terrific job I
                              think in presenting Steiner's writings, so I would also recommend
                              people go to that site.


                              Thanks,

                              Keith

                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "holderlin66"
                              <holderlin66@h...> wrote:
                              >
                              > holderlin wrote:
                              >
                              > Demokrit's concepts
                              > of 'the
                              > material' It is easy for us to state e.g. "Here
                              > Democritus was wrong as wrong could be.";
                              >
                              > Well that was great Jo Selsjord. Now let us be community minded.
                              > Firstly Stephen Hale was bumping into research that had to do
                              > with "Riddles of Philosophy" by Steiner.
                              >
                              > Bradford adds to the wonderful thread that started by Simone??:
                              >
                              > Communty minded means that you actually do your damned homework and
                              > check out how your sparkling intuition is enhanced in the world of
                              > the most advanced Spiritual and Consciousness Soul thinking. Ya,
                              > that is maybe not the way you would put the question, but suddenly
                              > you see that the theory of atoms and the basis of physics and the
                              > whole foundation of materialism comes from some guy in Greece who
                              > apparently was not a perfered smoking preference for Michael.
                              > Michael, by apparent prejudice, decided he liked smoking Aristos
                              > better than Demo's.
                              >
                              > But since most of the people stumbling, half asleep on this list
                              > don't even bother to use the research and search engines...we are
                              > here to help. Also cudos to Frank and JoAnn, why later. Firstly,
                              > drop what you are doing and rent the film, "MindWalk". YOu see, if
                              > you really had a community sense and an interest in
                              > things, "MindWalk" would have astonished you. You would have found
                              > it, it would have found you. However phases and developmental
                              > selfishness, and self interest prevent people from tackling the
                              > difficult issues of Materialism and viewing the discussion with
                              > fresh eyes. Most people give a rats ass about the stunning
                              > Materialistic World View we are submerged in. Mainly because they
                              > are self involved and care little but what comes and strokes their
                              > little emotional pussy. That is partly how we got the term
                              > Anthropussies. They cannot seem to connect to the community of
                              > humanity and their thinking cannot hold up in the big ocean.
                              >
                              > Since "Riddles of Philosophy" is beyond where some of you prefer to
                              > search, easy to find, perhaps we can give you a current dose of
                              > community research that even Stephen Hale might appreciate most
                              > people do not have the organ to take an interest and put these
                              > thoughts together properly. I know I have such an interest and so
                              > does Tom Mellett.
                              >
                              > http://www.southerncrossreview.org/8/einstein.htm
                              >
                              > " In his monumental work, The Riddles of Philosophy, published in
                              > 1923, Rudolf Steiner traces the evolution of Western philosophical
                              > thought from its birth in ancient Greece to its deathbed in our
                              > century. The book is not an encyclopedic recounting of philosophers
                              > and their ideas, but rather an organic survey of the evolving
                              > sequence of thought riddles faced by various philosophers over the
                              > last 25 centuries. What questions did they wrestle with at what time
                              > and why? If philosophy is an ocean, then Steiner dives underwater to
                              > evaluate the undercurrents and sources of philosophical questions,
                              > whereas the traditional academic treatment of the history of
                              > philosophy only catalogues the sequential passage of philosophers as
                              > conceptual sailors piloting their noetic vessels on the ocean
                              > surface. While academic philosophy collects only the manifest list
                              > of passengers and cargo, Steiner is interested in the actual
                              > experience of the many voyages, so that the reader may experience
                              > philosophy not as a dry, abstract scheme, but as a living organism
                              > that is born, grows up, matures and dies over twenty-five centuries
                              > of human existence.
                              >
                              > To Rudolf Steiner's way of thinking, the concept of Hindu
                              > philosophy, or Buddhist philosophy, or any Oriental philosophy is
                              > actually a contradiction in terms. Philosophy as such is a specific
                              > Western European phenomenon which only came into existence in the
                              > sixth or seventh Century before Christ in the locale of Greece. The
                              > word itself means "love of wisdom," and to the Greek mind, the very
                              > need to love something was a tacit admission that the something was
                              > missing, and loving it was searching to regain it.
                              >
                              > What was the "lost wisdom?" Whatever it was, it was not lost
                              > by the Hindus, Buddhists or other Oriental people. Since there was
                              > nothing lost, there was nothing to be regained, and hence no need to
                              > invent such a thing as philosophy, thereby making the concept of
                              > Oriental philosophy a contradiction in terms. As Steiner puts it at
                              > the beginning of The Riddles of Philosophy:
                              >
                              > "All attempts to find [that] philosophical thought life
                              > developed in pre-Greek times fail upon closer inspection. Genuine
                              > philosophy cannot be dated earlier than the Greek civilization. What
                              > may at first glance seem to resemble the element of thought in
                              > Oriental or Egyptian world contemplation proves, on closer
                              > inspection to be not real thought, but parabolic, symbolic
                              > conception."
                            • dottie zold
                              Hey Simone, Good to hear from you again. I am glad you liked those two books. I want to see if I can find one that I think might take it further in regards to
                              Message 14 of 28 , Dec 31, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hey Simone,

                                Good to hear from you again. I am glad you liked those
                                two books. I want to see if I can find one that I
                                think might take it further in regards to finding a
                                thing, at least on the outer level.

                                Magdalene/John/Lazarus is a funny stream. Funny in the
                                sense that my main point in the beginning was to show
                                that the Fourth Gospel was Magdalenian inspired. And
                                that she was the Beloved in the end of John if we have
                                to talk of one particular 'beloved'. However, in the
                                furthering work I am coming across the point that
                                Lazarus/John can exist, possibly, as another Beloved,
                                as long as we do not negate the Magdalene as a Beloved
                                as well. And I believe we can find this in Dr.
                                Steiners work regarding the point that The Fourth
                                Gospel is considered a Sophian gospel according to
                                what I have just recently read. And truth be told I do
                                not know how one or even that one would try to go
                                around this point in the Anthro world, beings that
                                supposedly the Lazarus/John figure has taken this
                                Sophia unto his home, which would mean within him.

                                And herein lies the problem with the Sophia being
                                split into two different 'houses': Magdalene and
                                Lazarus/John. I mean it may be a possibility but I
                                think what is most important at this time is that we
                                do recognize that the Magdalene did indeed carry this
                                Sophia, as can be seen throughout the Templars path as
                                well as the Rosicrucians, both of whom the Doctor
                                cites time and time again in his work. And at the very
                                least would make her a 'Beloved'.

                                The Book I Remember Union by Flo A? is a good one to
                                get a feel of the essnce of the Magdalene as a person
                                and her relationship to life itself. Again, as I have
                                said before, it goes to parts that I do not find true,
                                however with that said, it does lend a 'depth feel' to
                                understanding her as a woman healer so chosen during
                                this time to stand with the Christ Jesus.

                                Have you read the thesis by Father Jusino on the
                                author of the Fourth Gospel? It is a good one if you
                                have not and is online.

                                Gotta run, and Happy New Year to you. May it be
                                outragiously successful on all fronts.

                                Dottie
                                --- simonedi2 <simonedim@...> wrote:

                                >
                                > Hello Dottie,
                                >
                                > This is not exactly a reply to your post, since it
                                > has nothing to do
                                > with your discussion with Jo.
                                >
                                > It's just to tell you I finished reading those books
                                > you
                                > referred, "Threefold Mary" and "The Feminine
                                > Dimension of
                                > the Divine".
                                > Very interesting , very well developed (both of
                                > them) and intriguing
                                > in many aspects.
                                >
                                > Also, constant theme of your posts, I happen to
                                > share your opinion
                                > that Magdalene and John, the Apostle are one and the
                                > same.
                                > This idea, for me, is deprived of references, so
                                > far, but with
                                > arguments also 'in fermentation'.
                                > I'd like to ask you if you have any book or text
                                > references
                                > specifically in this topic, supporting your insight.
                                >
                                > (With all respect for Dottie's theory opposers,
                                > their arguments
                                > and references , I believe it may be a `mystery'
                                > which of
                                > shimmer and intuition are an exclusively feminine
                                > prerogative.)
                                >
                                > Cyb hugs,
                                > Simone.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >




                                __________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
                                http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
                              • Frank Thomas Smith
                                ... http://southerncrossreview.org/37/jusino.htm
                                Message 15 of 28 , Dec 31, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Thanks for your reply.
                                  > I'll look at Father Justino thesis.
                                  > I think it was post here before a link to this website, I'll see
                                  > if I can find it.
                                  >
                                  http://southerncrossreview.org/37/jusino.htm
                                • simonedi2
                                  Hello Flemming, Nice to meet you. Absolutely, there s nothing to be excused and your opinion is welcome. Thanks for your appreciation. I don t know if we could
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Dec 31, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello Flemming,

                                    Nice to meet you.
                                    Absolutely, there's nothing to be excused and your opinion is
                                    welcome.
                                    Thanks for your appreciation.
                                    I don't know if we could call Democritus a Gentleman, considering
                                    the modern meaning of this word. ;o)
                                    But anyway, gentleman or not, it's a pleasure share the company
                                    of his wisdom and find out more about this (almost) forgotten
                                    philosopher.

                                    Your Tibetan saying is very funny.

                                    I partially agree with the first part of it, since I believe that ,
                                    by principle, all unanimity is stupid.

                                    As for Saints needing to agree on everything to be Saints…well,
                                    let's say that Saints are also entitled to hold on their personal
                                    opinions; especially if we understand that there're many truths
                                    and not only one.
                                    If you agree, one of us is not a philosopher!
                                    (Or better, I'd say, none of us. (lol))

                                    I can't help wonder, just for 'the laugh of it', what would
                                    happen when, for example, two clowns agree, or two priests disagree
                                    on something.
                                    Would Tibetans have an answer to this (pertinent) inquiry?

                                    Wising you a happy 2005.

                                    Cyb hugs,
                                    Simone.


                                    > Hey Simone!
                                    > Ah,I know I'm butting in here,I hope you'll excuse me!
                                    > But Thank You Very Much for making this old Greek Gentleman come
                                    > alive!
                                    > Here's one for You,this is a tibetan saying:
                                    > When 2 Philosophers agree – One of them is not a Philosopher
                                    > When 2 Saints disagree – One of them is not a Saint
                                    > Vibes,
                                    > Flemming
                                  • simonedi2
                                    Dear Dottie, Thanks for your reply. I ll look at Father Justino thesis. I think it was post here before a link to this website, I ll see if I can find it. I
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Dec 31, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear Dottie,

                                      Thanks for your reply.
                                      I'll look at Father Justino thesis.
                                      I think it was post here before a link to this website, I'll see
                                      if I can find it.

                                      I want to write you longer, but I'm also in a hurry now,
                                      leaving to spend this New Year Eve there close to you, in LA.

                                      I wish you a happy and successful 2005.

                                      Cyb hugs,
                                      Simone.
                                    • Steve Haag
                                      ... Simone, Agreed. My guess is that amusement stands as one of the foundations stones of life manifesting. That and pathos. And they are rather strange
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jan 1, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "simonedi2"
                                        <simonedim@e...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > "Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they will never
                                        > cease to be amused"

                                        Simone,

                                        Agreed. My guess is that amusement stands as one of the foundations
                                        stones of life manifesting. That and pathos. And they are rather
                                        strange brothers, side by side.

                                        > "The best for men is to take life with the maximum of joy and the
                                        > minimum of annoyances"

                                        And yet, annoyance is another of those foundation stones that prods
                                        us to laughter where we find satisfying feelings of release, even
                                        while on the road to meaningful correctives.

                                        SteveD
                                      • Steve Haag
                                        ... What did Democritus knew that couldn t be spread and had to be destroyed to prevent its divulgation? What are Democritus secrets ? Simone, I have a guess
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jan 1, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "simonedi2"
                                          <simonedim@e...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Why did his books perish and his reputation had to be denigrated?
                                          What did Democritus knew that couldn't be spread and had to be
                                          destroyed to prevent its divulgation?
                                          What are Democritus' 'secrets'?

                                          Simone,

                                          I have a guess that the universe likes to play to the serious side,
                                          not be taken too lightly. Too much light spoils deep drama, deep
                                          pathos. Too much making light disturbs the actors on their stage,
                                          makes them forget their lines, takes them out of their concentration.

                                          Some humor is good, yes. But keep it in bounds, while the universe
                                          unfolds its tenacity to grave seriousness.

                                          SteveD
                                        • Steve Haag
                                          ... selfishness, and self interest prevent people from tackling the difficult issues of Materialism and viewing the discussion with fresh eyes. Most people
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jan 1, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "holderlin66"
                                            <holderlin66@h...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > phases and developmental
                                            selfishness, and self interest prevent people from tackling the
                                            difficult issues of Materialism and viewing the discussion with
                                            fresh eyes. Most people give a rats ass about the stunning
                                            Materialistic World View we are submerged in. Mainly because they
                                            are self involved and care little but what comes and strokes their
                                            little emotional pussy.

                                            Bradford,

                                            On the one hand, it sounds like you say people can't help but be
                                            where they are on their ladder/path of phases and development. On the
                                            other hand, you look to have a bit of sneer as though they could and
                                            should know better.

                                            Which be it?

                                            SteveD
                                          • Steve Haag
                                            ... I think we re getting close to the perfect bumper sticker! Gosh, that speaks volumes! Then is it true that some unanimity is wisdom? SteveD
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jan 1, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "simonedi2"
                                              <simonedim@e...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > all unanimity is stupid

                                              I think we're getting close to the perfect bumper sticker! Gosh, that
                                              speaks volumes!

                                              Then is it true that some unanimity is wisdom?

                                              SteveD
                                            • yogidahl2000
                                              I can t help wonder, just for the laugh of it , what would happen when, for example, two clowns agree, or two priests disagree on something. Would Tibetans
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jan 1, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I can't help wonder, just for 'the laugh of it', what would
                                                happen when, for example, two clowns agree, or two priests disagree
                                                on something.
                                                Would Tibetans have an answer to this (pertinent) inquiry?

                                                Hi Simone!
                                                yes,yes – the 2 Clowns would get an extra cup of Yak Butter Tea
                                                every day
                                                The 2 Priests would be sent to Bhutan!

                                                Apart from that:Ah,it might be true,perhaps Democritus was not
                                                really a Gentleman,if so one can understand him,it seems they never
                                                offered him the Nobel Prize,like some Henri Bergson – Some people
                                                get lucky,just think of it,Bergson had all the Duration of Time to
                                                ponder Duration and Time- What a lucky man he was! (and what a
                                                Sister he had,a modern ISIS)
                                                Happy 2005 to You!!
                                                Vibes,
                                                Flemming


                                                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "simonedi2"
                                                <simonedim@e...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Hello Flemming,
                                                >
                                                > Nice to meet you.
                                                > Absolutely, there's nothing to be excused and your opinion is
                                                > welcome.
                                                > Thanks for your appreciation.
                                                > I don't know if we could call Democritus a Gentleman, considering
                                                > the modern meaning of this word. ;o)
                                                > But anyway, gentleman or not, it's a pleasure share the company
                                                > of his wisdom and find out more about this (almost) forgotten
                                                > philosopher.
                                                >
                                                > Your Tibetan saying is very funny.
                                                >
                                                > I partially agree with the first part of it, since I believe
                                                that ,
                                                > by principle, all unanimity is stupid.
                                                >
                                                > As for Saints needing to agree on everything to be Saints…well,
                                                > let's say that Saints are also entitled to hold on their personal
                                                > opinions; especially if we understand that there're many truths
                                                > and not only one.
                                                > If you agree, one of us is not a philosopher!
                                                > (Or better, I'd say, none of us. (lol))
                                                >
                                                > I can't help wonder, just for 'the laugh of it', what would
                                                > happen when, for example, two clowns agree, or two priests
                                                disagree
                                                > on something.
                                                > Would Tibetans have an answer to this (pertinent) inquiry?
                                                >
                                                > Wising you a happy 2005.
                                                >
                                                > Cyb hugs,
                                                > Simone.
                                              • simone dimeglio
                                                Hello Steven, Sorry for my delay on answering, my time has been short. Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they will never cease to be amused
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Jan 3, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment

                                                  Hello Steven,

                                                  Sorry for my delay on answering, my time has been short.

                                                   

                                                  "Blessed are those who can laugh at themselves, for they will never

                                                  cease to be amused"

                                                  Agreed. My guess is that amusement stands as one of the foundations

                                                  stones of life manifesting. That and pathos. And they are rather

                                                  strange brothers, side by side.

                                                   

                                                  "The best for men is to take life with the maximum of joy and the

                                                  minimum of annoyances"

                                                  And yet, annoyance is another of those foundation stones that prods

                                                  us to laughter where we find satisfying feelings of release, even

                                                  while on the road to meaningful correctives.

                                                  -->Yeap, amusement and suffering, yet contraries can co-exist ('side by side'), tough one is sensed more intensively and that's how we define our humor at a given moment.

                                                  I'd say annoyance is a kind of suffering.

                                                   

                                                  Why did his books perish and his reputation had to be denigrated?

                                                  What did Democritus knew that couldn't be spread and had to be

                                                  destroyed to prevent its divulgation?

                                                  What are Democritus' 'secrets'?

                                                  I have a guess that the universe likes to play to the serious side,

                                                  not be taken too lightly. Too much light spoils deep drama, deep

                                                  pathos. Too much making light disturbs the actors on their stage,

                                                  makes them forget their lines, takes them out of their concentration.

                                                  Some humor is good, yes. But keep it in bounds, while the universe

                                                  unfolds its tenacity to grave seriousness.

                                                  -->I think the universe presents a single play; each of us perceives it differently. If it's a drama or a comedy, depends of our particular perception of it.

                                                  According to Democritus, 'happiness dwells in the soul'

                                                  Cyb hugs,

                                                   Simone.

                                                • simone dimeglio
                                                  Hello Flemming, yes,yes – the 2 Clowns would get an extra cup of Yak Butter Tea every day à What is Yak Butter Tea and what are its supposed effects on
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Jan 3, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment

                                                    Hello Flemming,

                                                     yes,yes � the 2 Clowns would get an extra cup of Yak Butter Tea

                                                     every day

                                                    What is Yak Butter Tea and what are its supposed effects on clowns?

                                                     

                                                    The 2 Priests would be sent to Bhutan!

                                                    I don�t know where Bhutan is. Would they reach an agreement there?

                                                     

                                                    Apart from that:Ah,it might be true,perhaps Democritus was not

                                                    really a Gentleman,if so one can understand him,it seems they never

                                                    offered him the Nobel Prize,like some Henri Bergson � Some people

                                                    get lucky,just think of it, Bergson had all the Duration of Time to

                                                    ponder Duration and Time- What a lucky man he was!

                                                    I never read him. My only existentialist experience was a few pages of �Nausea�, I found it depressing. So I suspect Bergson view of humor shall not be very sympathetic.

                                                    Btw, was Bergson a Gentleman?

                                                     

                                                     (and what a  Sister he had,a modern ISIS)

                                                    Who was her? Curious..

                                                    Cyb hugs,

                                                    Simone.

                                                  • Jo Selsjord
                                                    Simone, I Can t any way read your squiggles - sorry - very sorry! JoS
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Jan 3, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Simone,

                                                      I Can't any way read your squiggles - sorry - very sorry!

                                                      JoS
                                                    • simonedi2
                                                      ... Dear Jo, I wrote you an answer a few days ago, it s at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/10888 (Courier New) Sorry about these
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Jan 3, 2005
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Jo Selsjord <jo@s...>
                                                        wrote:
                                                        > Simone,
                                                        >
                                                        > I Can't any way read your squiggles - sorry - very sorry!
                                                        >
                                                        > JoS

                                                        Dear Jo,

                                                        I wrote you an answer a few days ago, it's at
                                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/10888
                                                        (Courier New)

                                                        Sorry about these squiggles. I used 'Comic Sans', my favorite font
                                                        and what I normally use in my emails, but Yahoo apparently doesn't
                                                        deal with it very well.

                                                        Cyb hugs,
                                                        Simone.
                                                      • yogidahl2000
                                                        Hi Simone! Hello Flemming, Flemming: yes,yes – the 2 Clowns would get an extra cup of Yak Butter Tea every day Simone: à What is Yak Butter Tea and what
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Jan 6, 2005
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Hi Simone!
                                                          Hello Flemming,
                                                          Flemming: yes,yes – the 2 Clowns would get an extra cup of Yak
                                                          Butter Tea every day
                                                          Simone: à What is Yak Butter Tea and what are its supposed effects
                                                          on clowns?
                                                          Flemming: Yak Butter Tea is the national Tibetan drink,somehow
                                                          comparable to the British 5 o'clock tea --- I'm not quite sure of
                                                          its precise effects on Clowns!
                                                          Flemming:The 2 Priests would be sent to Bhutan!
                                                          Simone: à I don't know where Bhutan is. Would they reach an
                                                          agreement there?
                                                          Flemming: Agreement? I don't think so! – The 2 priests would be
                                                          wrapped in AH,the mantric seed-syllable of the All-Accomplishing
                                                          Dhyani Buddha,Amoghasiddhi – Thus sent away!---- Bhutan is a small
                                                          country near Tibet,the reigning religion there is tantric
                                                          buddhism,almost exclusively dominated by the Sakya-pas,one of the 4
                                                          main schools of tibetan buddhism—It seems Madame Blavatsky had some
                                                          rather weird,"fantastic" ideas about Bhutan,thinking it to be the
                                                          land of left hand path black magicians- nah,I'm not sure the Sakya-
                                                          pas would buy into that one!
                                                          Simone: à I never read him. My only existentialist experience was a
                                                          few pages of `Nausea', I found it depressing. So I suspect Bergson
                                                          view of humor shall not be very sympathetic.
                                                          Btw, was Bergson a Gentleman?
                                                          Flemming: Ah,most likely Bergson's moods bordered more on
                                                          the "serious" rather than the humorous- Yep,I've heard he was a
                                                          Gentleman!—This guy,Sartre,yes,he can be depressing,still I find him
                                                          rather entertaining
                                                          Flemming:(and what a Sister he had,a modern ISIS)
                                                          Simone: à Who was her? Curious..
                                                          Flemming: Henri Bergson's sister was Moina Mathers- She became a
                                                          High Priestess within the very remarkable esoteric group,the Golden
                                                          Dawn – M.M. was clairvoyant ,or to be more precise,clairaudient –
                                                          She married Samuel L.Mathers,who can easily pass for one of the most
                                                          enigmatic spiritual figures in recent times --- The Golden Dawn was
                                                          such a promising enterprise,all its members were highly
                                                          intelligent,outstanding personalities,yet rather quickly it split
                                                          into various factions,partly due to the always
                                                          alarming,disturbing,dubious presence of Aleister Crowley---
                                                          Nominally the G.D.still exists,though,since decades it has been but
                                                          a shadow of itself – Probably the most extraordinary,highly
                                                          spiritual,now-living Golden Dawn-figure – is Dolores Ashcroft-
                                                          Nowicki,she's a great teacher
                                                          http://dolores.ashcroft-nowicki.com/
                                                          Cyb hugs,
                                                          Simone.
                                                          many cyb hugs back at You!
                                                          Flemming
                                                        • simonedi2
                                                          Hello Flemming, Thanks for your explanations. Flemming: Yak Butter Tea is the national Tibetan drink,somehow comparable to the British 5 o clock tea --- I m
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Jan 6, 2005
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Hello Flemming,

                                                            Thanks for your explanations.

                                                            Flemming: Yak Butter Tea is the national Tibetan drink,somehow
                                                            comparable to the British 5 o'clock tea --- I'm not quite sure of
                                                            its precise effects on Clowns!
                                                            --> Still to be investigated...

                                                            Flemming: Agreement? I don't think so! ¨C The 2 priests would be
                                                            wrapped in AH,the mantric seed-syllable of the All-Accomplishing
                                                            Dhyani Buddha,Amoghasiddhi ¨C Thus sent away!
                                                            --> Sorry my ignorance on Tibetan matters, where would they be sent
                                                            to?

                                                            Bhutan is a small country near Tibet,the reigning religion there is
                                                            tantric
                                                            buddhism,almost exclusively dominated by the Sakya-pas,one of the 4
                                                            main schools of tibetan buddhism¡ªIt seems Madame Blavatsky
                                                            -->Who was her?

                                                            had some rather weird,"fantastic" ideas about Bhutan,thinking it to
                                                            be the
                                                            land of left hand path black magicians- nah,I'm not sure the Sakya-
                                                            pas would buy into that one!
                                                            -->I wonder what would be her reasons for these ideas.

                                                            Ah,most likely Bergson's moods bordered more on
                                                            the "serious" rather than the humorous- Yep,I've heard he was a
                                                            Gentleman!¡ªThis guy,Sartre,yes,he can be depressing,still I find
                                                            him rather entertaining
                                                            -->I prefer Simone de Beauvoir ,anyway.

                                                            Flemming: Henri Bergson's sister was Moina Mathers- She became a
                                                            High Priestess within the very remarkable esoteric group,the Golden
                                                            Dawn ¨C M.M. was clairvoyant ,or to be more precise,clairaudient
                                                            --> Who she used to listen to?

                                                            She married Samuel L.Mathers,who can easily pass for one of the most
                                                            enigmatic spiritual figures in recent times --- The Golden Dawn was
                                                            such a promising enterprise,all its members were highly
                                                            intelligent,outstanding personalities,yet rather quickly it split
                                                            into various factions,partly due to the always
                                                            alarming,disturbing,dubious presence of Aleister Crowley---
                                                            Nominally the G.D.still exists,though,since decades it has been but
                                                            a shadow of itself ¨C Probably the most extraordinary,highly
                                                            spiritual,now-living Golden Dawn-figure ¨C is Dolores Ashcroft-
                                                            Nowicki,she's a great teacher
                                                            http://dolores.ashcroft-nowicki.com/
                                                            --> I gonna check it, thanks.

                                                            Cyb hugs,:o)
                                                            Simone.
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.